> "Canadian and European officials say they plan to begin negotiating > a massive agreement to integrate Canada's economy with the 27 nations > of the European Union, with preliminary talks to be launched at an > Oct. 17 summit in Montreal three days after the federal election.
> While I've thought this would be a good idea for a while, > this is not a development I ever expected. Economic integration often > leads to politican integration (one of the dangers of the FTA, > although the Americans have been thoughtfully obnoxious enough to > maintain a healthy level of distrust for them in Canada [1]) but I > will admit when I toy with superstates of the future, I've never > envisioned one where Canada ends up part of EU-Plus and not a > Pole-to-Pole New World Union.
> When I think about it, though, I live in a world where France > has several overseas regions that it counts as integral parts of > itself and this is no weirder.
Not to mention the two US states, and several territories, which are not contiguous with most of the US.
> SF tends unfortunately towards bland worldstates or barely > modified versions of today but are there examples of an Earth divided > up along lines that would seem counter-intuitive to us?
Can't offhand think of one.
> 1: NAFTA cannot lead to an NAU because there's no way at this time > to sell a union with Mexico with the US, even though it would at > one stroke end all illegal immigration from Mexico.
I can see a Community of the Americas which includes most of Latin America (with Argentina not a member if Brazil and Chile are members, or Brazil and Chile not members if Argentina belongs) plus Canada and Mexico.
In article <48d47587$0$90345$80460...@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com>, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> I can see a Community of the Americas which includes most of Latin > America (with Argentina not a member if Brazil and Chile are members, > or Brazil and Chile not members if Argentina belongs) plus Canada and > Mexico.
Why such bad feeling between Brazil & Chile on the one hand and Argentina on the other? Because of a war? Consider the example of France and Germany, which fought each other in three wars between 1870 and 1945, and are now both members of the European Union.
>> I can see a Community of the Americas which includes most of Latin >> America (with Argentina not a member if Brazil and Chile are members, >> or Brazil and Chile not members if Argentina belongs) plus Canada and >> Mexico.
>Why such bad feeling between Brazil & Chile on the one hand and >Argentina on the other? Because of a war? Consider the example of France >and Germany, which fought each other in three wars between 1870 and >1945, and are now both members of the European Union.
Only because both nations were now more worried about the military might of Russia and the economic might of the United States than they were about each other. What's the common binding threat for those three nations?
> > "Canadian and European officials say they plan to begin negotiating > > a massive agreement to integrate Canada's economy with the 27 nations > > of the European Union, with preliminary talks to be launched at an > > Oct. 17 summit in Montreal three days after the federal election.
> > While I've thought this would be a good idea for a while, > > this is not a development I ever expected. Economic integration often > > leads to politican integration (one of the dangers of the FTA, > > although the Americans have been thoughtfully obnoxious enough to > > maintain a healthy level of distrust for them in Canada [1]) but I > > will admit when I toy with superstates of the future, I've never > > envisioned one where Canada ends up part of EU-Plus and not a > > Pole-to-Pole New World Union.
> > When I think about it, though, I live in a world where France > > has several overseas regions that it counts as integral parts of > > itself and this is no weirder.
> Not to mention the two US states, and several territories, which are > not contiguous with most of the US.
> > SF tends unfortunately towards bland worldstates or barely > > modified versions of today but are there examples of an Earth divided > > up along lines that would seem counter-intuitive to us?
> Can't offhand think of one.
> > 1: NAFTA cannot lead to an NAU because there's no way at this time > > to sell a union with Mexico with the US, even though it would at > > one stroke end all illegal immigration from Mexico.
> I can see a Community of the Americas which includes most of Latin > America (with Argentina not a member if Brazil and Chile are members, > or Brazil and Chile not members if Argentina belongs) plus Canada and > Mexico.
not gonna happen, unless US is significantly weakened or Latin America gets significantly stronger. Otherwise, there will be no incentive for the US to play the team game of any real sense. And there will be serious disincentive for Latin American countries to remain suspicious toward the US given the history of US involvement in that part of the world, not to mention the significant animosity toward people of Hispanic origin explicitly expressed by the majority racial group in America.
EU succeeded because European nations face common military threat from Russia and the danger of their voices being drowned out by giants like Russia, America. That gives them the incentive to band together, no EU nation is strong enough to dominant certainly forces them to compromise; Almost all of EU members are highly developed or at least having the industrial and educational infrastructure in place for a quick lift-off, that reduces considerably the potential cost to integrate together economies of multiple nations; EU nations share close cultural, historical and religious background, that greatly reduces the potential friction arising from racism or religious fanaticism. To this very moment, EU still only pays lip service to Turkey's bid to join the still-white-Christian club because of Turkey's size, Turkey's wealth and most important of all, Turkey's religion. Democratization or rule of law are reasons too, but for the most part, they are excuses consciously or unconsciously picked up by EU to indefinitely delay actually admitting Turkey.
On Sep 20, 1:45 am, eatfastnoodle <d12s34...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ... not to mention the significant animosity toward people of > Hispanic origin explicitly expressed by the majority racial group in > America.
Maybe this is a product of having lived most of my life in New York, NY and Oakland-San Francisco, CA, but I really don't see a lot of anti- Hispanic sentiment. Anti-_illegal_ sentiment, yes, but not anti- Hispanic qua Hispanic.
I am well aware that, six decades and more ago, things were very different.
> Only because both nations were now more worried about the military > might of Russia and the economic might of the United States than they > were about each other.
That doesn't explain the "private" side of the Franco-German reconciliation, which included groups of enthusiastic pacifist students of both sides tearing down customs barriers in protest, and private initiatives setting up town twinnings.
Of course there was a strong outside motivation, but millions of actual, simple people in France and German really *felt* sick and tired of all the warring and scheming. It was a bit like a panting, sweating couple realising that after breaking all the crockery and laying waste to the entire apartment, they could as well have some excellent make-up sex and then think about how to pay for the redecoration. :)
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 07:19:07 -0400, Jordan179 wrote (in article <4ae75a45-2513-451f-9e86-38a173f8b...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com>):
> On Sep 20, 1:45 am, eatfastnoodle <d12s34...@gmail.com> wrote: >> ... not to mention the significant animosity toward people of >> Hispanic origin explicitly expressed by the majority racial group in >> America.
> Maybe this is a product of having lived most of my life in New York, > NY and Oakland-San Francisco, CA, but I really don't see a lot of anti- > Hispanic sentiment. Anti-_illegal_ sentiment, yes, but not anti- > Hispanic qua Hispanic.
> I am well aware that, six decades and more ago, things were very > different.
> - Jordan
Expressing anti-Hispanic sentiment in South Florida would be a Very Bad Idea(tm). Hint: Dade County's majority Hispanic, and I'm not just talking Cubans, either.
Christopher Henrich wrote: > "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> > I can see a Community of the Americas which includes most of Latin > > America (with Argentina not a member if Brazil and Chile are > > members, or Brazil and Chile not members if Argentina belongs) plus > > Canada and Mexico.
> Why such bad feeling between Brazil & Chile on the one hand and > Argentina on the other?
Tradition and rivalry.
> Because of a war? Consider the example of > France and Germany, which fought each other in three wars between > 1870 and 1945, and are now both members of the European Union.
Consider the example of Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland. And of Irish-Americans who support those Catholics, and Irish-Canadians who support those Protestants.
> > > "Canadian and European officials say they plan to begin > > > negotiating a massive agreement to integrate Canada's economy > > > with the 27 nations of the European Union, with preliminary talks > > > to be launched at an Oct. 17 summit in Montreal three days after > > > the federal election.
> > > While I've thought this would be a good idea for a while, > > > this is not a development I ever expected. Economic integration > > > often leads to politican integration (one of the dangers of the > > > FTA, although the Americans have been thoughtfully obnoxious > > > enough to maintain a healthy level of distrust for them in Canada > > > [1]) but I will admit when I toy with superstates of the future, > > > I've never envisioned one where Canada ends up part of EU-Plus > > > and not a Pole-to-Pole New World Union.
> > > When I think about it, though, I live in a world where France > > > has several overseas regions that it counts as integral parts of > > > itself and this is no weirder.
> > Not to mention the two US states, and several territories, which are > > not contiguous with most of the US.
> > > SF tends unfortunately towards bland worldstates or barely > > > modified versions of today but are there examples of an Earth > > > divided up along lines that would seem counter-intuitive to us?
> > Can't offhand think of one.
> > > 1: NAFTA cannot lead to an NAU because there's no way at this time > > > to sell a union with Mexico with the US, even though it would at > > > one stroke end all illegal immigration from Mexico.
> > I can see a Community of the Americas which includes most of Latin > > America (with Argentina not a member if Brazil and Chile are > > members, or Brazil and Chile not members if Argentina belongs) plus > > Canada and Mexico.
> not gonna happen, unless US is significantly weakened or Latin America > gets significantly stronger.
The US has been getting weaker (compared to the rest of the world) since about 1945.
In the 1950s, Arthur C. Clarke and other Brits wrote sf in which England was still a world power, and was also among the leading powers in space. England was no longer a world power.
The US is still a world power, but probably remains a superpower only because of past reputation.
In Central America (and to some extent in the rest of Latin America), it seems to now have influence about equal to Venezuela's.
In Europe, the EU counts for more than the US does.
The most positive thing I can say about US influence in the Muslim world is that we're _probably_ still trusted more than Israel is.
Some parts of Latin America have been getting stronger. For example, Brazil has been doing very well with agriculture.
> Otherwise, there will be no incentive for > the US to play the team game of any real sense. And there will be > serious disincentive for Latin American countries to remain suspicious > toward the US given the history of US involvement in that part of the > world, not to mention the significant animosity toward people of > Hispanic origin explicitly expressed by the majority racial group in > America.
> EU succeeded because European nations face common military threat from > Russia and the danger of their voices being drowned out by giants like > Russia, America. That gives them the incentive to band together, no EU > nation is strong enough to dominant certainly forces them to > compromise; Almost all of EU members are highly developed or at least > having the industrial and educational infrastructure in place for a > quick lift-off, that reduces considerably the potential cost to > integrate together economies of multiple nations; EU nations share > close cultural, historical and religious background, that greatly > reduces the potential friction arising from racism or religious > fanaticism. To this very moment, EU still only pays lip service to > Turkey's bid to join the still-white-Christian club because of > Turkey's size, Turkey's wealth and most important of all, Turkey's > religion. Democratization or rule of law are reasons too, but for the > most part, they are excuses consciously or unconsciously picked up by > EU to indefinitely delay actually admitting Turkey.
On Sep 20, 9:50 am, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> The US has been getting weaker (compared to the rest of the world) > since about 1945.
Well yes, but that's because "the rest of the world" had been devastated by World War II.
> The US is still a world power, but probably remains a superpower only > because of past reputation.
.... and a huge, first-rate modern military, backed by thousands of nuclear missiles and some of the only operational _anti-missiles_ in the world.
> In Central America (and to some extent in the rest of Latin America), > it seems to now have influence about equal to Venezuela's.
So what you're saying is that a mere _fraction_ of America's might easily counterbalances Venezuela's _entire_ national might?
> In Europe, the EU counts for more than the US does.
So we're _not_ stronger in Europe than is Europe itself? Why would you expect us to be?
The only way that we could have remained as relatively powerful as we were in 1945 is if we had _sabotaged_ the recovery of the rest of the world. But that's not our kind of game.
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 06:58:03 GMT, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote: >On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 04:33:43 GMT, Christopher Henrich ><chenr...@monmouth.com> wrote: >>In article <48d47587$0$90345$80460...@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com>, >> "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote: >>> I can see a Community of the Americas which includes most of Latin >>> America (with Argentina not a member if Brazil and Chile are members, >>> or Brazil and Chile not members if Argentina belongs) plus Canada and >>> Mexico. >>Why such bad feeling between Brazil & Chile on the one hand and >>Argentina on the other? Because of a war? Consider the example of France >>and Germany, which fought each other in three wars between 1870 and >>1945, and are now both members of the European Union. >Only because both nations were now more worried about the military >might of Russia and the economic might of the United States than they >were about each other. What's the common binding threat for those >three nations?
A Russian-Venezuelan alliance, of course. If we simply extrapolate from recent trends, that alliance is going to be powerful enough and aggressive enough to pose a real challenge for even a full ABC alliance in a decade or two. And the United States will be too busy dealing with Cuban Missile Crisis II to help...
I'm certain there will be people here who have some choice words about the wisdom of simple extrapolation from recent trends, but this *is* a science fiction newsgroup, and have you considered what fraction of the total body of SF we'd have to dispense with if we were to implement a "simple extrapolation from recent trends is stupid" rule?
-- *John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, * *Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" * *Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition * *White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute * *John.Schil...@alumni.usc.edu * for success" * *661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
On 20 Sep 2008 16:50:58 GMT, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>The US has been getting weaker (compared to the rest of the world) >since about 1945.
The rest of the world has been getting stronger more quickly - partly because followers have easier paths than leaders. The U.S.'s industrial revolution took less time than Britain's, and China's is taking less time than ours.
-- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
On Sep 20, 7:19 am, Jordan179 <JSBassior2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 20, 1:45 am, eatfastnoodle <d12s34...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ... not to mention the significant animosity toward people of > > Hispanic origin explicitly expressed by the majority racial group in > > America.
> Maybe this is a product of having lived most of my life in New York, > NY and Oakland-San Francisco, CA, but I really don't see a lot of anti- > Hispanic sentiment. Anti-_illegal_ sentiment, yes, but not anti- > Hispanic qua Hispanic.
> I am well aware that, six decades and more ago, things were very > different.
Heh. I was asked, not that long ago, after a sterling job interview, if I'd ever considered changing my name.
On Sep 20, 4:26 pm, Jordan179 <JSBassior2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 20, 9:50 am, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> > The US has been getting weaker (compared to the rest of the world) > > since about 1945.
> Well yes, but that's because "the rest of the world" had been > devastated by World War II.
Even so, our relative position improved for a couple of decades after that.
> > The US is still a world power, but probably remains a superpower only > > because of past reputation.
> .... and a huge, first-rate modern military, backed by thousands of > nuclear missiles and some of the only operational _anti-missiles_ in > the world.
For values of "operational" approaching zero, sure.
But I take the point that our military budget equals that of the rest of the world's, combined.
> > In Central America (and to some extent in the rest of Latin America), > > it seems to now have influence about equal to Venezuela's.
> So what you're saying is that a mere _fraction_ of America's might > easily counterbalances Venezuela's _entire_ national might?
Sure. But that fraction has shifted mightily, recently.
> > In Europe, the EU counts for more than the US does.
> So we're _not_ stronger in Europe than is Europe itself? Why would > you expect us to be?
Because, not that long ago, we were?
Just a guess.
> The only way that we could have remained as relatively powerful as we > were in 1945 is if we had _sabotaged_ the recovery of the rest of the > world. But that's not our kind of game.
That *wasn't* our kind of game. But Truman and Marshall *weren't* Bush and Cheney.
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 04:19:07 -0700, Jordan179 wrote: > On Sep 20, 1:45 am, eatfastnoodle <d12s34...@gmail.com> wrote: >> ... not to mention the significant animosity toward people of Hispanic >> origin explicitly expressed by the majority racial group in America.
> Maybe this is a product of having lived most of my life in New York, NY > and Oakland-San Francisco, CA, but I really don't see a lot of anti- > Hispanic sentiment. Anti-_illegal_ sentiment, yes, but not anti- > Hispanic qua Hispanic.
> I am well aware that, six decades and more ago, things were very > different.
> - Jordan
Here in Nashville, Tennessee, we have had a relatively large influx of Hispanic folks in the last decade or so. A lot of the local reactionaries don't make much distinction between illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, and folks of Hispanic descent born in the USA, even if the latter group have been here for many generations. These are the same sort of reactionary folks who, before the Hispanic influx, were constantly griping about black people. The dinosaur-types make up only a minority of the total white population, but they are a very vocal minority, both in the media and on the Internet, making Nashville appear to be much further to the right than is actually the case. Some of them give the impression that they would consider the KKK to be too left-wing.
-- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com PGP key available from http://pgp.mit.edu "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
Howard Brazee wrote: > On 20 Sep 2008 16:50:58 GMT, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> > The US has been getting weaker (compared to the rest of the world) > > since about 1945.
> The rest of the world has been getting stronger more quickly - partly > because followers have easier paths than leaders. The U.S.'s > industrial revolution took less time than Britain's, and China's is > taking less time than ours.
Also, leaders have more investment in This Is The Way We Do It. Which is part of why the Japanese started using transistors in consumer electronics before US companies did, for example.
On Sep 19, 10:01 pm, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> James Nicoll wrote:
> > 1: NAFTA cannot lead to an NAU because there's no way at this time > > to sell a union with Mexico with the US, even though it would at > > one stroke end all illegal immigration from Mexico.
> I can see a Community of the Americas which includes most of Latin > America (with Argentina not a member if Brazil and Chile are members, > or Brazil and Chile not members if Argentina belongs) plus Canada and > Mexico.
Not to mention Bolivia not joining unless Chile agreed to give back its Pacific coast that it lost over a hundred years ago. Then there are Ecuador's squabbles with Peru. Basically none of the countries in Latin America get along with their immediate neighbors due to long- held grudges and territorial disputes. There have been motions made to form a South American verison of the EU, but I don't see it progressing as far as giving up actual sovereignty anytime soon.
Not to mention Bolivia not joining unless Chile agreed to give back its Pacific coast that it lost over a hundred years ago. Then there are Ecuador's squabbles with Peru. Basically none of the countries in Latin America get along with their immediate neighbors due to long- held grudges and territorial disputes. There have been motions made to form a South American verison of the EU, but I don't see it progressing as far as giving up actual sovereignty anytime soon.
-----------------------------------
Gibraltar seems to show that nobody cares so long as people are busy making money.
Cyprus seems to show that countries on the fringes of such organisations can manage quite well with ostensibly illegal governments.
Israel (An EC preferred EC trading partner, which means it gets all the free trade benefits) shows that you can offend even the Arabs and stay.
When there's money to be made everyone gets really agreeable to doing deals...
The British have even managed to keep border controls...
-- William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea.
> On Sep 19, 10:01 pm, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote: >> James Nicoll wrote:
>>> 1: NAFTA cannot lead to an NAU because there's no way at this time >>> to sell a union with Mexico with the US, even though it would at >>> one stroke end all illegal immigration from Mexico. >> I can see a Community of the Americas which includes most of Latin >> America (with Argentina not a member if Brazil and Chile are members, >> or Brazil and Chile not members if Argentina belongs) plus Canada and >> Mexico.
> Not to mention Bolivia not joining unless Chile agreed to give back > its Pacific coast that it lost over a hundred years ago. Then there > are Ecuador's squabbles with Peru. Basically none of the countries in > Latin America get along with their immediate neighbors due to long- > held grudges and territorial disputes. There have been motions made to > form a South American verison of the EU, but I don't see it > progressing as far as giving up actual sovereignty anytime soon.
I've read pretty much the exact opposite in a very respectable German paper (FAZ IIRC) not long ago - i.e. that Bolivia and Peru had finally settled their conflict to the point where they could move on and take care of more important issues, and Mercosur (I think that's what it's called) heading towards implementation of a first stage of political union.
Ben Goodman wrote: > On Sep 19, 10:01 pm, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote: > > James Nicoll wrote:
> > > 1: NAFTA cannot lead to an NAU because there's no way at this time > > > to sell a union with Mexico with the US, even though it would at > > > one stroke end all illegal immigration from Mexico.
> > I can see a Community of the Americas which includes most of Latin > > America (with Argentina not a member if Brazil and Chile are > > members, or Brazil and Chile not members if Argentina belongs) plus > > Canada and Mexico.
> Not to mention Bolivia not joining unless Chile agreed to give back > its Pacific coast that it lost over a hundred years ago.
I'd forgotten about that. And the story about a member of another country's government asking why Bolivia has a Department of the Navy when it has no navy.
"Why does your country have a Department of Justice?"
> Then there > are Ecuador's squabbles with Peru. Basically none of the countries in > Latin America get along with their immediate neighbors due to long- > held grudges and territorial disputes. There have been motions made to > form a South American verison of the EU, but I don't see it > progressing as far as giving up actual sovereignty anytime soon.
It took a while for the European Union to get anywhere near that level.
>> Then there >> are Ecuador's squabbles with Peru. Basically none of the countries in >> Latin America get along with their immediate neighbors due to long- >> held grudges and territorial disputes. There have been motions made to >> form a South American verison of the EU, but I don't see it >> progressing as far as giving up actual sovereignty anytime soon.
> It took a while for the European Union to get anywhere near that level.
Hmmm. There was a "European Parliament" from the get go. In fact, there were three competing "European Parliaments". It then took twenty years to settle on one and make it elected by the people instead of appointed by governments.
> Ben Goodman wrote: > > On Sep 19, 10:01 pm, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote: > > > James Nicoll wrote:
> > > > 1: NAFTA cannot lead to an NAU because there's no way at this time > > > > to sell a union with Mexico with the US, even though it would at > > > > one stroke end all illegal immigration from Mexico.
> > > I can see a Community of the Americas which includes most of Latin > > > America (with Argentina not a member if Brazil and Chile are > > > members, or Brazil and Chile not members if Argentina belongs) plus > > > Canada and Mexico.
> > Not to mention Bolivia not joining unless Chile agreed to give back > > its Pacific coast that it lost over a hundred years ago.
> I'd forgotten about that. And the story about a member of another > country's government asking why Bolivia has a Department of the Navy > when it has no navy.
> "Why does your country have a Department of Justice?"
Bolivia's Navy's main purpose nowadays is patrolling Lake Titicaca which is South America's largest lake. It happens to straddle the border between Peru and Bolivia. They may also be hoping to get their Pacific coast back, and I've heard that Chile's been more receptive to it, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
> > On Sep 19, 10:01 pm, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote: > >> James Nicoll wrote:
> >>> 1: NAFTA cannot lead to an NAU because there's no way at this time > >>> to sell a union with Mexico with the US, even though it would at > >>> one stroke end all illegal immigration from Mexico. > >> I can see a Community of the Americas which includes most of Latin > >> America (with Argentina not a member if Brazil and Chile are members, > >> or Brazil and Chile not members if Argentina belongs) plus Canada and > >> Mexico.
> > Not to mention Bolivia not joining unless Chile agreed to give back > > its Pacific coast that it lost over a hundred years ago. Then there > > are Ecuador's squabbles with Peru. Basically none of the countries in > > Latin America get along with their immediate neighbors due to long- > > held grudges and territorial disputes. There have been motions made to > > form a South American verison of the EU, but I don't see it > > progressing as far as giving up actual sovereignty anytime soon.
> I've read pretty much the exact opposite in a very respectable German > paper (FAZ IIRC) not long ago - i.e. that Bolivia and Peru had finally > settled their conflict to the point where they could move on and take > care of more important issues, and Mercosur (I think that's what it's > called) heading towards implementation of a first stage of political union.
> But then, respectable papers can be wrong, too.
Bolivia's main beef is with Chile (although Peru was involved in the war too and may bhave ended up with a Bolivian city, but they took it from Chile). I've heard Chile is actually making concillatory noises towards giving the Atacama back, but if I were from Antofagosta, I would have serious issues with being told I was now living in Bolivia after the area being Chilean for so long.
Matthias Warkus wrote: > Dan Goodman schrieb: > > > Then there > > > are Ecuador's squabbles with Peru. Basically none of the > > > countries in Latin America get along with their immediate > > > neighbors due to long- held grudges and territorial disputes. > > > There have been motions made to form a South American verison of > > > the EU, but I don't see it progressing as far as giving up actual > > > sovereignty anytime soon.
> > It took a while for the European Union to get anywhere near that > > level.
> Hmmm. There was a "European Parliament" from the get go. In fact, > there were three competing "European Parliaments". It then took > twenty years to settle on one and make it elected by the people > instead of appointed by governments.
I'm talking about the beginning -- before it was officially concerned with anything except coal and steel. And well before it was _called_ the European Community.
>> Dan Goodman schrieb: >>>> Then there >>>> are Ecuador's squabbles with Peru. Basically none of the >>>> countries in Latin America get along with their immediate >>>> neighbors due to long- held grudges and territorial disputes. >>>> There have been motions made to form a South American verison of >>>> the EU, but I don't see it progressing as far as giving up actual >>>> sovereignty anytime soon. >>> It took a while for the European Union to get anywhere near that >>> level. >> Hmmm. There was a "European Parliament" from the get go. In fact, >> there were three competing "European Parliaments". It then took >> twenty years to settle on one and make it elected by the people >> instead of appointed by governments.
> I'm talking about the beginning -- before it was officially concerned > with anything except coal and steel. And well before it was _called_ > the European Community.
I was talking about that same period of time (which, by the way, was made clear by the "twenty years" figure). The ECCS already had a parliament.
|
